"The Sabbath Day Lake group did recently admit three new members but they weren't recognized by the other remaining original members (Melton 1992)."

Today there are seven women living in small sections of the Canterbury, New Hampshire and Sabbath Day Lake, ME community. At their peak membership between 1830 and 1840, there were 6,000 Shakers in 19 communities (Melton 1992).

"The Sabbath Day Lake group did recently admit three new members but they weren't recognized by the other remaining original members (Melton 1992)."

Today there are seven women living in small sections of the Canterbury, New Hampshire and Sabbath Day Lake, ME community. At their peak membership between 1830 and 1840, there were 6,000 Shakers in 19 communities (Melton 1992).

IN THE CULTURE war of today, the representatives of one side have
systematically set out to destroy the shining examples of middle
America. They seem to be doing so with an unconscious fanaticism that
most closely parallels the conscious fanaticism of the various
iconoclastic movements in the history of Christianity. They are doing
this in a variety of ways--through the media, of course, and through the
educational system. They are very thorough in their work and no less
bold in the astonishingly specious pretexts upon which they demand the
sacrifice of yet another shining example.

In the current debate on gay marriage, its advocates are cast in the
role of long-oppressed suppliants demanding their just due. Indeed, the
whole question is put in terms of their legal and moral rights, against
which the opponents of gay marriage have nothing to offer but "residual
personal prejudice," to recall again the memorable words of the chief
justice of the Canadian Supreme Court.

But it is a mistake to conflate the automatic with the irrational,
since, as we have seen, an automatic and mindless response is precisely
the mechanism by which the visceral code speaks to us. It triggers a
rush of emotions because it is designed to do precisely this. Like
certain automatic reflexes, such as jerking your hand off a burning
stovetop, the sheer immediacy of our visceral response, far from being
proof of its irrationality, demonstrates the critical importance, in
times of peril and crisis, of not thinking before we act. If a man had
to think before jumping out of the way of an onrushing car, or to
meditate on his options before removing his hand from that hot stovetop,
then reason, rather than being our help, would become our enemy. Some
decisions are better left to reflexes--be these of our neurological
system or of our visceral system.

This is why for most people, including many gay men and women, the
immediate response to the idea of gay marriage came at the gut level--it
somehow felt funny and wrong, and it felt this way long before they were
able to spare a moment's reflection on the question of whether they were
for it or against it. There is a reason for that: They were overwhelmed
at having been asked the question at all. How do you explain what you
have against what had never crossed your mind as something anyone on
Earth would ever think of doing? This invitation to reason calmly about
the hitherto unthinkable is the source of the uneasy visceral response.
To ask someone to reason calmly about something that he regards as
simply beyond the pale is to ask him to concede precisely what he must
not concede--the mere admissibility of the question.

Imagine a stranger coming up to you and asking if he can drive your
eight-year-old daughter around town in his new car. Presumably, no
matter how nicely the stranger asked this question, you would say no.
But suppose he started to ask why you won't let him take your little
girl for a ride. What if he said, "Listen, tell you what. I'll give her
my cell phone and you can call her anytime you want"? What kind of
obligation are you under to give a reason to a complete stranger for why
he shouldn't be allowed to drive off with your daughter?

None. A question that is out of order does not require or deserve an
answer. The moment you begin to answer the question as if it were in
order, it is too late to point out your original objection to the
question in the first place, which really was: Over my dead body.

Marriage was something that, until only quite recently, seemed to be
securely in the hands of married people. It was what married people had
engaged in, and certainly not a special privilege that had been extended
to them to the exclusion of other human beings. Who, after all, could
not get married? You didn't have to be straight; you could be gay. So
what? Marriage was the most liberal institution known to man. It opened
its arms to the ugly and the homely as well as to the beautiful and the
stunning. Was it defined as between a man and a woman? Well, yes, but
only in the sense that a cheese omelet is defined as an egg and some
cheese--without the least intention of insulting either orange juice or
toast by their omission from this definition. Orange juice and toast are
fine things in themselves--you just can't make an omelet out of them.

Those who are married now, and those thinking about getting married or
teaching their children that they should grow up and get married, may
all be perfect idiots, mindlessly parroting a message wired into them
before they were old enough to know better. But they are passing on,
through the uniquely reliable visceral code, the great postulate of
transgenerational duty: not to beseech people to make the world a better
place, but to make children whose children will leave it a better world
and not merely a world with better abstract ideals.

We have all personally known shining examples of such human beings, just
as we have all known mediocre parents as well as some absolutely
dreadful ones. Now suppose we are told, as we often are told in the
gaymarriage debate, that the institution of marriage is not what it used
to be. What does this mean? Does it mean that the shining example of a
good marriage, of a good father and a good mother, and of a happy family
has ceased to be one that we want to realize in our own lives? Not at
all. We may in fact be farther than ever from living up to the shining
example--but that is hardly proof that we should abandon it as an ideal
to which to aspire. If the crew of a ship is developing scurvy because
limes have gone out of fashion, is this a reason to throw the limes
overboard or a reason to change the fashion?

The shining example of a happy marriage and its inherent ideality was
something that we once could all agree on; but now it is a shining
example that has been subjected to the worst fate that can befall one:
It has been become a subject of controversy and has thereby lost its
most essential protective quality: its ethical obviousness in the eyes
of the community. Once the phrase "gay marriage" was in the air,
marriage was suddenly what it had never thought to be before: a kind of
marriage, a type--traditional marriage, or that even worse monstrosity,
heterosexual marriage.

Erm, I'm sorry, but isn't there a difference between the Society of Friends (Quakers) and the United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing (Shakers). Whilst there are some similarities between the two, they *are* different denominations.

I hasten to add that as being a member of the Society of Friends, I know of a lot more then four active Quakers.

I also don't quite understand why people do miss-associate Quakerism (which has a great respect for Science and modern methods (such as, you know, computers and things...)) with other 'small' Christian Denominations. I've met people who think that Quakers are very like the Amish - I've *no* idea why.

I am working on an essay about the threat to world peace posed by the various Millenarian movements that are to be found among Christianity, Islam and Judiasm. I was inspired to write it by a radio show I heard years ago that convinced me that US President Ronald Reagan felt he had been appointed by God Himself to initiate The Apocalypse by launching a nuclear war against the Soviet Union:

Its copyright is "All Rights Reserved" in its present form, but I'll give it the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs license when I'm done writing it. (I generally wait until I post my final drafts before I apply a CC license to discourage copying of rough drafts that might well be full of errors.)

Most frightening is that when the current President of Iran was Mayor of Tehran, Iran's capital city, he spent millions on improvements to Tehran's religious and civic facilities in preparation for the return of Mahdi, the Islamic Messiah, who will create a perfect, world-wide Islamic society.

This gentlemen has been traveling the world to deliver speeches in which he prays for Mahdi's return, for example in front of the United Nations General Assembly.

(I should point out that the belief that Mahdi will return is a Shi'ite thing; the Sunnis believe he hasn't been born yet. Iran is a Shi'ite Muslim country.)

What's frightening about this is that he has often boasted of Iraq's nuclear research program. While he claims that its for peaceful power production as allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, he has refused offers from other countries to refine reactor-grade Uranium for Iran's peaceful use. He's been very clear that Iran must possess its own enrichment facilities.

My essay will outline the End Times prophecies of each of the religions covered, as well as variations on the prophecies as given by various movements such as the Dispensationalists.

Since the Shakers call themselves "United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing" then maybe it would be worthwhile to cover them in my piece.

When I asked for help with this in my Kuro5hin diary I was told that Christian Milleniarianism was a uniquely American phenomenon these days that has been denounced by religous leaders in other countries such as the Church of England's Bishop Durham.

Unfortunately, not only does the United States have more hydrogen bombs than anyone, the flames of Christian
End Times prophecy are being stoked by many hucksters out to make a profit by taking advantage of many who are sincerely faithful in their beliefs.

I haven't ye begun researching the Jewish position, but I understand there are some radical Israelis who advocate hastening The Messiah's appearance by
tearing down one of Islam's holiest shrines and rebuilding the Temple of Jerusalum in its place.

(It would be the Jewish Messiah's first appearance, not second - the Second Coming of the Messiah is a purely Christian thing.)

Also I came across a page that quoted every Israeli Prime Minister who has ever held the office as stating that their long-term goal is to drive the Palestinians completely out of Israel. The current Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said as much in a speech before the United States House of Represenatitives.

Apparently this is a requirement for restoring the Kingdrom of Israel, which I expect would also require restoring its boundaries to what they were before Israel's conquest by the Romans. Thus you can forget about the Palestinians ever being allowed to have a state of their own.

I know most of my fellow Advogato members would urge us all to ignore these people, and point out many well-known logical inconsistencies written in the three Holy Books involved, but one must realize that the radically faithful far outnumber the calmly logical.

Thus we must speak to these people politely, seriously, with arguments couched in their own terms: by reading and quoting from their Holy Books. I don't expect the more radical-minded to pay me much heed, but I hope that their more sensible neighbors might realize that all the conflicts in the Middle East have gotten way out of hand, and must be settled diplomatically before its military solution kills us all.

Chicago, 4 remaining memebers refers to strictly Shakers. I don't know where i got the impression that they are all elder women. One distinction between Shakers and Quakers is precisely on the sex of Christ's second appearing. Some might believe it is heretic even to suggest that. But none the less, that is my interpretation of the unspeakable miracle within the limit of common understanding and language.

wai has done a _lot_ of research into religion in many forms, and is extremely well-read in the major religion's sacred books. he also researched the secret orders of the major religions, and found that there is much commonality between them all - for example, that reincarnation is central to all religions; that reincarnation has been either "sexed up" or in some cases (like christianity) REMOVED from the teachings to the plebicites, for political reasons... but that reincarnation remains a key part of the "secret order" behind each major religion.

also, he notes that the 'end times' prophesies are pretty much common across all the major religions - and some obscure ones as well - and that the "signs" are pretty clear that it's right now.

also, he notes that there is no "one messiah" - but that all of us - every single human - qualifies as "the messiah" - because all of us have the ability to recognise god within ourselves.

he notes that some people choose not to recognise this.

so. if you are religious - or even if you're not - stop waiting for "the messiah to save you" and get off your arse and do something.

At first, I thought it was interesting, the King James Bible's mention of "the Rapture"... Now though, I find it all very scary.

Not scary as in what the King James Bible says, scary as in millions of "Christians" actually believe in it.

But it goes deeper than the Rapture:

Dominionism is a natural if unintended extension of Social Darwinism and is frequently called "Christian Reconstructionism." Its doctrines are shocking to ordinary Christian believers and to most Americans. Journalist Frederick Clarkson, who has written extensively on the subject, warned in 1994 that Dominionism "seeks to replace democracy with a theocratic elite that would govern by imposing their interpretation of 'Biblical Law.'" He described the ulterior motive of Dominionism is to eliminate "...labor unions, civil rights laws, and public schools."

my friend wai refers to an incident somewhere around 300 or 500 ad (from memory - i skim-read his material over 3 days, about two weeks ago)

a roman city leader decided that, in order to keep the population under control, all mention of the word 'reincarnation' would be removed from the bible and from the christian faith, which had become predominant at the time.

he instructed the pope (church?) on what to do, and he prevailed.

his reasoning was quite simple: the plebicites were thinking thus:

"oh, yes i definitely believe in reincarnation: it means i have lots of lives to sort out my problems and my attitude, therefore i can excuse my behaviour now, because i can pay for it later".

(never mind the fact that, if you believe in karma, it gets _harder_ to 'pay' for your past actions: this critical little snippet is frequently forgotten when people talk about reincarnation...)

as a result, his city was somewhat in chaos, as the general population "excused" their actions and laziness.

the result is that a good 50 or so generations of christians believe that they're gonna get their dead body back all nice and new, and be "judged" in a mythical place called "heaven".

perhaps, for their own good, it's better that way.

... however, this _can't_ be an isolated incident of doctoring the bible and the christian religion (nor of any other religion, for that matter).

ultimately, though, no matter what you 'believe' (or in some rare cases 'know') it doesn't alter the simple fact that we're going, figuratively, to hell in a handbasket. with global warming, pollution-dumping and over-fishing, we've already reset the evolution of earth's oceans back some 400 million years.

the current 'technology' of genetic engineering is equivalent to taking two garments with zips, a 5-lb sledge hammer, smashing out a small section of the zip from one of the garments, melting it into the other garment's zip, and then hoping like hell that people can wear it.

the result is that the 'checks and balances', present in DNA, are completely bypassed, and you end up with things like gut bacteria reverse-engineering genetically-modified soya-bean DNA, and integrating it with their own.

permanently.

some idiot created genetically-modified crops which have pesticide-resistance added, and these cross-fertilise with grasses and then those cross-fertilise with weeds, and you end up with super-resistant weeds that you can't kill.

there's plenty of dead planets: i'd rather this one that i'm living on wasn't one of them.

Inter-racial marriage is the only way to mix race. What manifested in Inter-religion dialogues is the Western thought mirroring Eastern way of life. Evolution of language and domination of certain language among all languages are the best place to look for divine signs. And that's that. Mass destructive weapon is not as scary as abusive language and too much time wasted on argumentory deliberation. Buddhist meditation, Haiku in Japan, love of poetic elaboration among Chinese people are all good. These are exemplary religious way of life that Western still haven't realized the full potential of it.

It was many and many a year ago,
On an island near the sea,
That a maiden lived whom you mightn't know
By the name of Cannibalee;
And this maiden she lived with no other thought
Than a passionate fondness of me.

I was a child, and she was a child --
Tho' her tastes were adult Feejee --
But she loved with a love that was more than love
My yearning Cannibalee;
With a love that could take me roast or fried
Or raw, as the case might be.

And that is the reason that long ago,
In that island near the sea,
I had to turn the tables and eat
My ardent Cannibalee --
Not really because I was fond of her,
But to check her fondness for me.

But the stars never rise but I think of the size
Of my hot-potted Cannibalee,
And the moon never stares but it brings me
nightmares
Of my spare-rib Cannibalee;
And all the night-tide she is restless inside,
Is my still indigestable dinner-belle bride,
In her pallid tomb, which is Me,
In her solemn sepulcher, Me.